518980
research-article2014
RSEXXX10.1177/0741932513518980Remedial and Special EducationRao et al.
Article
A Review of Research on Universal
Design Educational Models
Remedial and Special Education
2014, Vol. 35(3) 153­–166
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741932513518980
rase.sagepub.com
Kavita Rao, PhD1, Min Wook Ok, MEd2,
and Brian R. Bryant, PhD2
Abstract
Universal design for learning (UDL) has gained considerable attention in the field of special education, acclaimed for its
promise to promote inclusion by supporting access to the general curriculum. In addition to UDL, there are two other
universal design (UD) educational models referenced in the literature, universal design of instruction (UDI) and universal
instructional design (UID). This descriptive review of 13 research studies conducted in pre-K–12 and post-secondary
settings examined how researchers are applying and evaluating UD in educational settings. Results of the review illustrated
that studies use a range of research designs to examine student outcomes and participant perceptions of UD-based
curriculum and instruction. Researchers report on their application of UD principles in varied ways, with no standard
formats for describing how UD is used. Based on results of the review, we provide recommendations to help establish a
meaningful research base on the validity of UD in education.
Keywords
universal design for learning, universal instructional design, universal design of instruction, universal design, inclusion, access
Universal design for learning (UDL) has become a popular
instructional topic in special education that gained prominence in the 1990s with the growing awareness of the need
to provide individuals with disabilities access to the general
curriculum. The Individuals With Disabilities Educational
Act of 1997 and 2004 furthered these mandates at a K–12
level, and the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) and
Sections 504 (1973) and 508 (1998) of the Rehabilitation
Act mandated equitable access to curriculum at a post-secondary level. More recently, legislation at the federal and
state levels specifically mentioned UDL as part of special
education initiatives. For example, the Higher Education
Opportunity Act (HEOA; 2008), the Race to the Top
Assessment Program (U.S. Department of Education
[USED], 2009), and the Task Force to Explore the
Incorporation of the Principles of UDL into the Education
Systems in Maryland (Maryland State Department of
Education, 2011) emphasize the importance of training
teachers to use UDL to create more inclusive environments
for teaching and learning.
The term universal design (UD) was coined by Ron
Mace as a way of “designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent
possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life” (Center for Universal Design, 2010). The original UD principles, which were developed by a team of
architects, product designers, engineers, and environmental
design researchers (Story, Mueller, & Mace, 1998), originally focused on proactively reducing environmental barriers and providing increased access to the physical
environment. Educational models based on this concept,
such as UDL, extended the idea of access to the learning
environment (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley, & Abarbanell,
2006).
UD Educational Models
In addition to UDL, universal design of instruction (UDI)
and universal instructional design (UID) are often referenced in the literature as frameworks for extending access
in educational environments. Each model has a set of principles that focus on reducing barriers in learning environments and increasing access to curriculum and instruction
for diverse learners, especially students with disabilities.
Table 1 provides an overview of the main principles, guidelines, and performance indicators associated with each
1
University of Hawaii, Manoa, Honolulu, USA
The University of Texas at Austin, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Kavita Rao, Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, Wist
117, College of Education, University of Hawaii, Manoa, 1776 University
Avenue, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
Email: kavitar@hawaii.edu
154
Remedial and Special Education 35(3)
Table 1. Principles Associated With Universal Design Models.
Model
Principles/guidelines
UID (Goff & Higbee, 2008; http://www.cehd.umn.edu/passit/)
a. Creating welcoming classrooms
b. Determining essential components of a course
c. Communicating clear expectations
d. Providing timely and constructive feedback
e. Exploring use of natural supports for learning, including technology
f. Designing teaching methods that consider diverse learning styles,
abilities, ways of knowing, and previous experience and background
knowledge
g. Creating multiple ways for students to demonstrate their knowledge
h. Promoting interaction among and between faculty and students
UDL (National Center on Universal Design for Learning,
2010; www.udlcenter.org/)
Principle I: Provide multiple means of representation
Principle II: Provide multiple means of action and expression
Principle III: Provide multiple means of engagement
UDI (Burgstahler, 2009; http://www.washington.edu/doit/
CUDE/)
a. Class climate
b. Interaction
c. Physical environments and products
d. Delivery methods
e. Information resources and technology
f. Feedback
g. Assessment
h. Accommodation
Note. UID = universal instructional design; UDL = universal design for learning; UDI = universal design of instruction.
model. Although each model uses slightly different terms to
denote guiding principles, we use the term “principles” to
denote the major principles, guidelines, and performance
indicators of the respective models.
All three UD educational models focus on cognitive
access and highlight ways in which educational resources,
teacher pedagogy, and the flexible design of curriculum and
instruction can address students’ needs and support diverse
learners. UD principles can be applied to curriculum and
instruction at many levels, from lesson objectives and materials to instructional methods and assessments (Hall, Meyer,
& Rose, 2012). The three frameworks provide guidelines
for building in support and flexibility during the planning
process and for proactively designing instruction with the
objective of including the greatest number of users
possible.
Along with the three main principles presented in Table
1, the UDL framework, associated with the work of the
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), presents 9
guidelines and 31 specific checkpoints under the three principles, detailing how flexible options and learner supports
can be built in to lesson design and implementation. The
UDI and UID frameworks provide broader, less specific
guidelines for lesson and curriculum design; however, these
frameworks address additional factors such as student–
instructor interactions, classroom environment, and accommodations. Although the principles of all three models are
applicable to both pre-K–12 and post-secondary environments, the UDI and UID frameworks are often associated
with post-secondary environments and courses in the literature. The UID principles are derived from Chickering and
Gamson’s (1987) seven principles of good practice for
undergraduate education (Goff & Higbee, 2008). The UDI
principles address elements relevant for post-secondary
environments such as instructional materials, facilities,
strategies, web-based instruction, labs, fieldwork, and demonstrations (Burgstahler, 2009). In this article, we will use
the term UD in education to refer to the three models (UDL,
UDI, and UID) that are a focus of this review.
Research on UD in Education
Although UD in education has become increasingly popular
in the past decade and is often referenced in the literature,
the research base supporting its efficacy is in a nascent
phase. The National Center on Universal Design for
Learning (NCUDL; 2011) website provides extensive
research evidence compiled by CAST to support each of the
31 UDL checkpoints. However, studies supporting the discrete checkpoints do not examine the application or effects
of the broader framework of UDL. Edyburn (2010) noted
the dearth of research on UDL and the implications of this
scarcity, stating that “without an adequate base of primary
research, an analysis of research evidence establishing UDL
as a scientifically validated intervention is not possible” (p.
34). Another barrier to establishing efficacy has been the
lack of clear definition of what constitutes an intervention
that is universally designed. There is no consensus on how
155
Rao et al.
UD principles should be applied, nor is there agreement as
to how much or in what combination the principles or
guidelines of any model need to be present for an educational intervention to be considered universally designed.
For example, is a lesson universally designed if the teacher
includes multiple means of representation within instructional materials? Or do several UD principles have to be
applied to various components of the lesson such as instructional materials and teaching strategies? Moreover, to make
claims about the efficacy of UD in education, it will be necessary to define the UD components of an intervention and
examine how those components contribute to increasing
access to curriculum and instruction.
Edyburn (2010) highlighted that UDL is essentially
about instructional design and noted the importance of
making clear connections between principles and components of instruction such as learning objectives, learner
characteristics, support strategies, technology, and outcomes. Because UD principles can be applied to various
instructional elements, including resources, strategies,
activities, and assessments, there are innumerable ways that
the principles can be applied to practice. To give definition
and shape to the broader construct of UD in education, it is
important to articulate what exactly constitutes an intervention that is universally designed by describing UD principles applied within an intervention.
initial set of articles to examine. We used EBSCOHost to
search the following databases: ERIC, Academic Search
Premier, and Professional Development Collection; we also
searched PsycInfo and Social Sciences Index. We used the
following primary keywords: universal design for learning,
universal instructional design, universal design of instruction, and universal design; and the following secondary
keywords: post-secondary, college, university, higher education, elementary, middle, high, and secondary in all
searches. We used Boolean search terms (AND, OR) and
wildcards (such as the asterisk) to double-check results and
ensure that combinations and alternative forms of the keywords were searched. Our searches were conducted between
October 2011 and January 2012, so the set of articles we
found represent those referenced in databases prior to
January 2012.
The initial search yielded more than 200 unique articles
with the search terms above. Two members of the research
team carefully reviewed the titles and abstracts of search
results and selected articles that met the following inclusion
criteria:
1.
2.
3.
Purpose of the Study
To know what the empirical literature says on UD in education, we undertook a systematic review of intervention articles referencing the three UD educational models, UDL,
UID, and UDI. We reviewed studies conducted in primary,
secondary, and post-secondary settings to determine how UD
principles are applied to interventions across the spectrum of
formal education (pre-K through post-secondary). To gain an
understanding of how researchers operationalize, apply, and
evaluate UD design in education, we examined the following
facets of studies: (a) What are the stated purposes, research
methods (i.e., designs, participants, settings, duration), findings, and implications reported for studies explicitly involving UD as part of an educational intervention? and (b) How
are UD principles applied to the interventions? Because we
were interested in examining how researchers describe and
discuss the use of UD in education, we recorded information
on the purposes and implications of studies as stated by the
authors without attempting to interpret or analyze their representation of this key information.
Method
Search and Selection Process
We searched five databases that catalog articles in the fields
of education, social sciences, and psychology to find an
4.
Reported an empirical study (using quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed-method design)
Reported on a study conducted at pre-K–12 or postsecondary level
Referenced UDL, UDI, and/or UID as the framework for the study
Published in peer-reviewed journals.
We also looked for previous reviews of UD in education and found one review of UD in post-secondary education (Roberts, Park, Brown, & Cook, 2011). We
examined the eight articles found in this review to determine whether they met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the set of 200 articles that met inclusion criteria,
several studies examined perceptions of faculty and disability service providers about UD models. Because these
studies were not primarily about application of UD models to curriculum and instruction but rather about perceptions of the models themselves, we chose to exclude
them. After coding all articles (as described in the following section) and discussing at length how articles might
best be examined to answer the research questions, we
excluded articles that
1.
2.
3.
were only descriptive case studies, with no research
design or participant outcomes reported,
examined usability or accessibility of software
rather than application of UD models to teaching
and learning outcomes, or
mentioned UD as a general concept, rather than
describing how a UD model was applied to teaching
and learning.
156
After examining each article carefully, we identified 13
articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. These
articles became the focus of our review and are identified
with an asterisk in the “References” section of the article.
Coding and Interrater Reliability
The 13 articles were randomly assigned to each of three raters to be coded. The coding sheet contained 24 categories
including UD model used, purpose of study, research methods, participant demographic information, setting, duration,
and results and implications of the study as defined by the
authors. We also coded information on the application of
UD principles to interventions by descriptively noting how
and where researchers made connections between UD principles and their interventions.
A total of 7 articles out of 13 were randomly selected and
coded to check interrater reliability. Interrater reliability
was established in two phases. Initially, 4 articles were
coded by all three raters. The three raters coded the articles
independently, discussed questions that arose during the
coding process, and clarified coding procedures to derive a
shared consensus of category definitions. Second, each
rater recoded the initial 4 articles based on the revised coding categories. Then, an additional 3 articles were coded by
two of the three raters.
Interrater reliability was calculated by using this formula on the information coded, cell by cell, in the 24 categories: the number of agreements divided by the number
of agreements plus disagreements multiplied by 100. For
categories containing descriptive information (e.g., application of UD principles), agreement was determined if
both raters selected the same information from the article.
For example, for the item on application of UD principles,
raters looked for specific references to application of UD
principles and noted down (a) the section of the article
where this information was provided and (b) the actual
sentences/paragraphs about how UD principles were
applied to the intervention. For purposes of calculating
interrater reliability, if both raters had noted down the
same sections and passages, it was considered an agreement. Discrepancies (e.g., one rater found less or different
information than the other) were resolved by the raters discussing the article and coming to an agreement on what
descriptive information to include. As a final check, one
rater compiled the descriptive information from all the
coding sheets and reviewed each article to ensure that the
information was consistently represented. Interrater reliability calculated for all seven articles, in terms of percentage of agreement, was 88%, which is within the range
typically reported for interrater reliability in research syntheses (Cooper & Hedges, 1994).
Remedial and Special Education 35(3)
Results
We report results of the review according to educational
level of the participants. Of the 13 studies that met inclusion/exclusion criteria, 8 studies were conducted in pre-K–
12 environments (see Table 2) and 5 were conducted in
post-secondary settings (see Table 3).
Eleven studies referenced UDL, one UDI, and one both
UDL and UID. All of the pre-K–12 studies referenced UDL
as the educational model they were using, whereas the postsecondary studies referenced UDL, UDI, and UID. In the
following sections, we summarize information about the
purpose, research methods, outcomes, and application of
UD principles in the 13 intervention studies reviewed. In
Tables 2 and 3, we present the purpose and implications of
the studies as stated by the authors of the article.
Purpose and Research Methods
One purpose of this review was to examine how research on
UD is being conducted by examining the purpose and
research methods (including research designs, participants,
settings, and duration) of each study. The purposes of the
studies ranged from investigating student perceptions of
UD-based curriculum to examining of student outcomes for
UD-based interventions. The set of pre-K–12 studies
described various types of academic curriculum and classroom projects that incorporated UDL principles. These
studies investigated outcomes for students on various
dependent variables, including student engagement in lessons (Abell, Jung, & Taylor, 2011), attainment of academic
goals (Browder, Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee,
2009; Lieber, Horn, Palmer, & Fleming, 2008), and use of
technology-based tools to provide cognitive supports for
the learning process and for assessment (Basham, Meyer, &
Perry, 2010; Dolan, Hall, Banerjee, Chun, & Strangman,
2005; Marino, 2009). Two studies examined how students
responded to curriculum that teachers had designed in
alignment with UDL principles (Dymond et al., 2006;
Kortering, McClannon, & Braziel, 2008). In the post-secondary set of articles reviewed, two studies examined student perceptions of university-level courses that used UD
principles (Parker, Robinson, & Hannafin, 2008; Rao &
Tanners, 2011) and three studies examined the effects of
UD training and curriculum on instructor practices
(McGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007; Schelly, Davies, &
Spooner, 2011; Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, &
Browder, 2007).
Five of the 13 studies used qualitative designs, 5 used
quantitative designs, including 1 single-case design, and 3
used mixed-method designs. The level of detail provided in
the studies for demographic variables of participants
varied. Three studies provided information about grade
157
Introduction: General description of UDL/UD
and three principles of UDL provided. Authors
made reference to UDA briefly and noted that
there has been an effort to apply UDL to largescale assessments.
Methods: UDL principles were referenced as a
context for one of the testing conditions of the
intervention. Features of CBT condition that
link to UDL principles were specified, such as
text-to-speech and provision of choice.
All three participants increased their independent responses during the
intervention phase. Shared stories activity, which applied the principles of UDL,
was effective in increasing independent responses aligned with indication of
early comprehension.
Team planning with UDL for shared stories was an important strategy that allowed
students to participate in lesson. Applying these principles might help early
childhood teachers plan ways to present materials and get all students ready to
respond.
On the National Assessment of Educational Progress history and civics test,
students’ scores showed a statistically significant effect of CBT on long reading
passages. Students performed slightly better on paper-based test for short
passages, but result was not statistically significant.
Analysis of the qualitative data suggested that student preferences for CBT-TTS
were linked to features that promoted independence and flexibility and that
students strongly endorsed the text-to-speech feature within the CBTTTS format. Authors noted that the computer-based test fulfilled UDL’s
recommendations that “students be provided multiple, flexible means of
representation of information, namely text and audio, with opportunities for
simultaneous presentation if possible, namely synchronized highlight. The
system also allows students to proceed through the test in any order, to read
questions before passages, and the like, as well as adjust font size and voice
parameters” (p. 23).
To demonstrate a method for
planning and implementing
shared stories for students
with multiple disabilities
that incorporated both task
analytic instruction and team
planning using principles of
UDL
To investigate the potential of
computer-based read-aloud
testing accommodations,
examining not only
group-wide effects but
also the impact of the
accommodation on individual
students
Browder, Mims,
Spooner,
AhlgrimDelzell, and Lee
(2009)
Dolan, Hall,
Banerjee, Chun,
and Strangman
(2005)
UDL
UDL
UDL
(continued)
Introduction: General description of UDL and
three principles with brief examples were
provided.
Methods: The authors provided specific examples
of how each principle was applied during a
team-based task analysis process to individualize
intervention for each participant.
Authors described how project developed in each of the three consecutive
design cycles. With appropriate scaffolding provided, students used multimedia
technologies and made connections between what they learned in a school
setting and the museum experience.
Authors noted that the digital backpack provided students multiple means of
representation, expression, and engagement, noting the components of the
technology and process that connected to each principle. Authors stated “the
alignment of the digital backpack with the UDL framework provided a flexible
and scalable learning experience that allowed each student to succeed in
learning content and using new technologies” (p. 355).
Qualitative (case study: designbased research)
35 students
Grade: 7–11
High school
Gender: 13 M, 22 F
Ethnicity: 27 AA, 1 W (partially
provided)
Disability: 1 LD (partially
provided)
Duration: 3.5–6.5 hr
Setting: Urban/rural high school
Single subject (multiple-probe
across participants)
3 students
Grade: Elementary (M = 8 years)
Gender: 2 M, 1 F
Ethnicity: N/R
Disability: All ID
Duration: 30 min, 3 sessions/
week, 3.5 months
Setting: special education
classroom in urban elementary
school
Mixed method (quasiexperimental and case study)
10 students
Grade: high school, 10–11
Gender: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Disability: All LD
Duration: Study conducted over
3-week period; students given
a 50-min training on CBT
procedures and 45 min to take
the test
Setting: Suburban public high
school resource room social
studies class
To define the concept and
necessary components
of the digital backpack;
to discuss its potential as
a readily accessible and
adaptable means for schools
to appropriately provide for
desired outcomes in diverse
student environments
Basham, Meyer,
and Perry
(2010)
UDL
Introduction: Overview of UDL and three
principles provided. Authors give examples
of ways that UDL can be incorporated
in curriculum and broadly described the
features of a “classroom aligned to UDL
principles” (p. 175) and provide a few examples
(scaffolded instructional curricula, instructional
personalization, project-based learning).
Methods: Table illustrated how questions on
survey were rephrased to align to UDL
principles. Authors described the rephrasing of
items on the survey to better capture the UDL
elements of the classroom environment.
Introduction: Definition and general description
of UDL provided. Authors noted that three
principles of UDL were embedded in the digital
backpack, and provided some examples of how
each principle was applied. Article described
the technologies used in great detail, with
some discussion of how these technologies
connected to UDL principles.
For the survey subscales of personalization and participation, high school students
had significantly higher perception scores than upper elementary school
students or middle school students. For investigation, there was no significant
difference among upper elementary, middle school, or high school students.
Students with female teachers overall had significantly higher personalization
scores than students of male teachers.
UDL-aligned instructional approaches and curriculum materials might create
more interest and engagement in curriculum materials for older students,
giving students more opportunities for success with the rigorous academic
requirements found at the senior high school level.
Description of UD application
Findings and stated implications
Quantitative (survey)
867 students
Grade: 5–12
Gender: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Disability: N/R
Duration: one school year
Setting: N/R
Research methods
To examine students’
perceptions toward their
instructional environments in
classrooms exploring UDL
Stated purpose of study
Abell, Jung, and
Taylor (2011)
Study, model
Table 2. Pre-K–12 Articles Referencing UD Educational Models.
158
Introduction: General description of UD
provided. Brief examples of UDL identified in
literature.
Methods: Several broad examples of UDL
application were provided. Table 2 identified
specific questions related to curriculum and
instruction that align to UDL principles. Article
described specific UDL strategies but links to
principles and information on the extent to
which strategies were used in particular lessons
were not explicit.
Introduction: Overview of UDL and three
principles were provided.
Methods: Detailed description of the UDLbased intervention, including a table with
the instructional strategies used, is provided.
Authors stated that these instructional
strategies were linked to three UDL principles,
but did not make specific links between
instructional strategies and principles.
Introduction: Examples of how UDL principles
were specifically applied to lesson elements in
school-wide CSS curriculum provided.
Methods: Noted that CSS was designed with UDL
principles and provided an example lesson how
each principle was applied.
Authors highlighted how specific practices helped
the two participants in their in-depth study and
made explicit connections with UDL principles.
Introduction: Description of UDL and the use
of technology-based tools to support UDL
principles provided. Author noted that this
study is designed to address the need for
research on technology-based tools that can be
used in development of UDL curricula.
Methods: Alien Rescue curriculum used in the
study includes critical components of UDL
framework. Description of cognitive tools and
scaffolds within Alien Rescue environment were
provided, but links to specific UDL principles
were not made.
Reported effectiveness of UDL strategies and specific outcomes for students in
relation to UDL-based curriculum and instruction. The redesigned curriculum
was especially positive for students with disabilities for increasing their social
interaction, participation, and completion of work, grades, and test scores. One
predominant outcome was the impact of UDL-based strategies on relationships
and interactions among students with severe CD and other students.
General and special education student participants reported strong levels of
favorable agreement with the effectiveness of, utility of, and satisfaction with
the UDL interventions, in comparison with their other academic classes. They
also reported favorable ratings of learning important and useful information,
information to help them on their exams, and staying on task and working
hard.
More than 90% of student responses called for their teachers to do more of this
type of instruction. Authors commented that this is a preliminary finding that
points to increased engagement in high school academic classes.
Students made gains in math skills and social skills: CSS curriculum improved
learning outcomes in literacy, math, and social skills.
Children experienced significant gains in literacy as indicated by their Rhyming,
Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack Emergent Writing, Letter Naming
Task, Picture Naming, and PPVT-III scores. Children also experienced
significant gains in math skills as indicated by their Applied Problem,
Quantitative Concepts, and Quantitative Concepts Number Series scores.
They also experienced significant gains in social skills as indicated by their
standardized Social Skills Rating System scores.
Students who scored below the 50th percentile on reading assessment utilized
and benefited from the technology-based cognitive tools in highly similar ways.
Low ability readers benefited more from tools that share cognitive load than
their proficiently reading peers. However, they did not use any of the tools
as frequently as their proficiently reading peers. Students with severe reading
difficulties in this study were able to perform as well as their peers who scored
in the 26–50 percentile on post-test measures, providing “tangible evidence
that the UDL framework has the potential to improve access and learning for
students with severe reading difficulties” (p. 100).
Qualitative (case study:
participatory action research)
3 teachers
101 students
Grade: High school
Gender: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Disability: 25 MD, 2 CD
Duration: 2 semesters
Setting: High school in small city
in Midwest, general education
inclusive science class
Mixed method (survey)
290 students
22 teachers
Grade: High school
Gender: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Disability: 37 LD, 6 BD, 2 ID,
12 ADD
Duration: 24 sessions, 90 min
each (14 algebra and 10
biology)
Setting: General high school
algebra and biology classrooms
Mixed method (one group pretest–post-test and case study)
58 students
Grade/age: Pre-school
M = 4.5 years
Gender: 42 M, 16 F
Ethnicity: 17 H, 6 AA, 29 W, 2
A, 3 multiracial
Disability: 29 SLI, 19 DD, 1 ED, 1
OHI, I ID, 1 Autism
Duration: 1 school year
Setting: N/R
Quantitative (one group pretest–post-test)
1,153 students
Gender: 50% M, 50% F
Grade: 6–8
Ethnicity: 91% White, 1% AA, 5%
A, 3% H
Achievement data
Disability: 126 reading difficulties
Duration: 4 weeks
Setting: middle school inclusive
science classes in Northeast
To describe the experiences
of school personnel involved
with redesigning one inclusive
high school science course
To provide findings on student
perceptions of individual
interventions based on the
principles of UDL
Dymond et al.
(2006)
Kortering,
McClannon,
and Braziel
(2008)
To examine the relationship
between students’ reading
ability, use of cognitive tools,
and their comprehension
of scientific concepts and
processes
Marino (2009)
Note. UD = universal design; UDL = universal design for learning; N/R = not reported; M = male; F = female; AA = African American; W = White; LD = learning disabilities; ID = intellectual
disabilities; CBT = computer-based testing; TTS = Text to Speech; UDA = universal design for assessment; MD = mild disabilities; CD = cognitive disabilities; BD = behavior disorder; ADD =
attention deficit disorder; H = Hispanic; A = Asian American; SLI = speech language impairment; DD = development disabilities; ED = emotional disturbance; OHI = other health impairment; PPVT-III
= Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Third Edition; CSS = Children’s School Success.
UDL
UDL
To explore the notion of
access to the general
curriculum for pre-school
children with special needs,
with a specific focus on
ensuring that children not
only have access but also
make meaningful progress
Lieber, Horn,
Palmer, and
Fleming (2008)
UDL
UDL
Description of UD application
Findings and stated implications
Research methods
Stated purpose of study
Study, model
Table 2. (continued)
159
To analyze student online
interactions and course
evaluations to produce
examples of how the
web-enabled course design
created an environment
that helped instantiate
both the adult learning
tenets and the UDI
principles
To (a) examine how UID
and UDL guidelines can
be considered during
the instructional design
process and applied
in an online course
environment, and (b)
determine which elements
of UD were most valued
by and useful to students
enrolled in the online
course
Parker, Robinson, and
Hannafin (2008)
UID and UDL
Rao and Tanners (2011)
UDI
UDL
To explore and document
how teacher candidates
in pre-K through Grade
3 classrooms understood
and used the principles of
UDL in lesson planning
and teaching
Stated purpose of study
McGuire-Schwartz and
Arndt (2007)
Study, model
Qualitative (case study)
114 teacher candidates
Gender: N/R
Age: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Duration:
1 hr 40 min weekly over a 15week semester
Setting: Public university, core
special education class
Qualitative (case study)
25 graduate students
Gender: N/R
Age: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: Rural locations on
several islands in Hawaii
Qualitative (case study: action
research)
Two studies w/ 41 teacher
candidates
Gender: N/R
Age: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Duration:
Study1: 2 semester
Study 2: 6 weeks
Setting:
Study 1: Private college
Study 2: Public college
Research methods
Table 3. Post-Secondary Articles Referencing UD Educational Models.
Students indicated a preference for several
UD-based pedagogical elements within
the course. Students utilized multimodal
resources, found short assignments
useful for retaining course content,
and appreciated the interaction and
organization of course.
Authors made connections between specific
UID and UDL principles and course
components valued by students.
Study 1: Increased student learning and
engagement.
Study 2: The principles and practices of UDL
affected student learning.
All of the participants reported that using the
principles and practices of UDL frequently
or almost always benefited their lesson
plans and the students with who they
worked. They found that the tools and
resources that they utilized were useful
in planning lessons; UD lessons used
multiple approaches that almost always or
frequently met the needs of a wide variety
of students, including those with disabilities.
The UD-based course design and delivery
provided opportunities for practical,
applied learning activities and critical
reflection within a community of practice,
enabled self-directed learning, and
facilitated the development of a respectful
environment in the course. Authors
connected student outcomes to specific
UDI principles.
Findings and stated implications
(continued)
Introduction: Overview of three
UD educational models provided.
Study focused on application of two
models (UID and UDL) to course
design.
Methods: Detailed description of
course design and instruction and
links to UID and UDL principles
provided. Table 2 noted how
specific elements of course were
designed to meet UID and UDL
principles.
Introduction: Description/definition
of UDI and a website link provided
for examples of faculty products
that reflect UDI principles.
Methods: Specific examples of how
UDI principles were applied within
course instruction provided.
Introduction: Overview of UDL
framework was provided.
Methods: Authors described two
studies of pre-service teacher
training and application of UDL.
No specific information on how
participants applied UDL principles.
Operationalization/application of UD
principles
160
To determine the effects
of teacher training about
UDL on the lesson
plan designs of special
education and general
education teachers in a
college classroom setting
Spooner, Baker, Harris,
Ahlgrim-Delzell, and
Browder (2007)
Findings and stated implications
Results indicated that UDL training for
instructors appeared to change students’
perceptions about how their instructors
presented ideas and information, engaged
students, and allowed students to express
their comprehension of course content.
Two areas that appeared to have the most
impact on changing instructors’ behavior
were (a) the importance of presenting
concepts in multiple ways and offering
course materials in a variety of formats and
(b) the need to summarize key concepts
before, during, and immediately following
instruction. Instructors incorporated these
UDL strategies into their teaching almost
immediately following the training sessions.
Quantitative (true experimental Both special education and general
pre-test–post-test)
education teachers in the experimental
72 students
group showed an increase in mean scores
Gender: 17 M, 55 F
on including UDL-based modifications
Age: 19–58
from pre- to post-test. The intervention,
M = 33 years
a 1-hr training on integrating UDL,
Ethnicity: 60 W, 9 AA, 3 Others
enabled general education and special
Duration: N/R
education teacher to develop lesson plans
Setting: Education major classes
that involved a student with a mild or
in a southeastern university
severe cognitive disability. Participants
in the experimental group showed a
considerable amount of growth in lesson
plan development between the pre-test
and post-test compared with the control
group’s pre-test and post-test.
Quantitative (one group
pre–post survey)
5 instructors, 1,362 students
completed pre-survey; 1,233
students completed pre and
post survey
Gender: N/R
Age: N/R
Ethnicity: N/R
Disability: 8% of survey
completers reported having a
disability (specific info N/R)
Duration: N/R
Setting: Intro to psychology
course
Research methods
Introduction: Overview of UDL and
three principles was provided.
Method: Authors noted that
participants in treatment group
were given a 1-hr lecture on UDL
focusing on modification of lesson
plans using the three components
of UDL. Some examples of
UDL-based strategies included in
training were provided. Scoring
rubric assessing the use of three
components of UDL was provided.
Introduction: Overview of UDL and
three principles were provided.
Method: Authors noted that
instructors were trained in UDLrelated strategies and provided
some examples of the strategies.
Detailed listing of survey questions
about UDL-based strategies was
provided.
Operationalization/application of UD
principles
Note. UD = universal design; UDL = universal design for learning; N/R = not reported; UDI = universal design of instruction; UID = universal instructional design; M = male; F = female; W = White;
AA = African American.
UDL
UDL
To measure the
effectiveness of UDL
instructor training, as
indicated by student
perceptions of UDL
implementation and to
determine the feasibility of
changing faculty behaviors
via student perceptions
Stated purpose of study
Schelly, Davies, and
Spooner (2011)
Study, model
Table 3. (continued)
Rao et al.
levels, gender, ethnicity, and disability status. Information
on participant gender and ethnicity was not provided in 8
studies and disability information was not provided in 5
studies. Overall, the 8 pre-K–12 studies provided greater
detail about participant characteristics and 7 of those studies provided specific information on disability status. Only
1 post-secondary study provided detailed participant information and none of the studies reported on participant disability status. The duration of the studies varied from
interventions that lasted a few hours to courses that lasted
semesters and intervention projects that lasted over the
school year.
Findings and Stated Implications
In addition to examining the purpose of each study and its
research methods, we coded information on each study’s
findings and the UD-related implications as stated by
researchers. The reporting of findings varied widely because
the research designs and methods of analyses were diverse.
Analyses included inferential statistics on pre- and post-test
data; qualitative coding of perceptions of survey, interview,
and observational data; and single-case visual inspection
methods of individual student responses to curriculumbased interventions. The fourth columns of Tables 2 and 3
provide details about study findings and implications
related to the use of UD principles, which are summarized
according to study focus (i.e., academic skills, student perceptions, and instructor implementation of UD) in the following subsections.
Academic skills. In the quasi-experimental and single-case
studies, researchers noted gains in specific academic outcomes related to literacy, math, and science content knowledge and attributed the gains to the UD-based interventions
(Browder et al., 2009; Lieber et al., 2008; Marino, 2009).
Lieber et al. (2008) found that students participating in a
school-wide curriculum that integrated several components
of UD demonstrated statistically significant gains in literacy, math, and social skills on standardized tests. In their
single-subject multiple-probe across-participants study,
Browder et al. (2009) found that three students with severe
disabilities increased their independent responses during a
UDL-based intervention, an indication of the development
of early comprehension skills.
Two studies examined how students used computerbased tools that provided strategic and cognitive supports
(e.g., multimodal features that provide scaffolds as they
read, review, and access information). Marino (2009) examined how readers of varying ability levels used cognitive
tools in a web-based environment designed to teach science
content. Results of this study showed that low readers benefited from the tools that supported cognitive load and that
students with severe reading difficulties were able to perform as well as their peers who scored in the 26–50
161
percentile on post-test measures. The author noted that
these results indicated that the UDL framework has the
potential to improve access for students with severe reading
difficulties. Dolan et al. (2005) found that students’ scores
showed a statistically significant difference in the computer-based condition for long reading passages and that
students showed a preference for testing accommodation
features that promoted independence and flexibility.
Basham et al. (2010) examined how UD-based
approaches affected the learning experience and process for
students. Using an iterative design-based research model,
these researchers described the benefits of integrating technology and instructional scaffolds to support students’
knowledge and skill acquisition. In describing the UDLrelated implications of their studies, researchers noted benefits for students when the UDL principles of multiple
means of representation were included in curriculum
(Basham et al., 2010; Browder et al., 2009; Marino, 2009).
Student perceptions. Results of the studies that examined
student perceptions reported increased student engagement
with interventions and curriculum based on UD principles
(Abell et al., 2011; Kortering et al., 2008; Parker et al.,
2008; Rao & Tanners, 2011). Kortering et al. and Abell et al.
noted the potential of increased engagement to promote
academic success for secondary students and to provide
access to rigorous high school curriculum. Parker et al.
(2008) and Rao and Tanners (2011) found that UD-based
practices fostered the formation of community and increased
interaction in college-level courses. Schelly et al. (2011)
found that instructor training on UDL resulted in changes
and improvements in instruction from a student
perspective.
Instructor implementation. Three studies examined the outcomes of training instructors to implement UD into curriculum. Dymond et al. (2006) conducted a case study of a
curriculum redesign and found that the curriculum was
especially positive for students with disabilities for increasing their social interaction, participation, and completion of
work, grades, and test scores. McGuire-Schwartz and Arndt
(2007) conducted a case study with teacher candidates, and
participants reported that using the principles of UDL frequently benefited their lesson plans and the students with
whom they worked. Spooner et al. (2007) conducted an
experimental study found that a 1-hr training on UDL
resulted in a considerable amount of growth in the ability of
general and special education teachers to include UDLbased modifications in lesson plans to address the needs of
students with a mild or severe cognitive disability.
Disability-related information. When we coded the results of
the studies, we also noted whether researchers disaggregated findings in relation to specific disabilities. Six of the
pre-K–12 studies described the results and implications of
162
UD-based interventions for students with disabilities in particular (Browder et al., 2009; Dolan et al., 2005; Dymond et
al., 2006; Kortering et al., 2008; Lieber et al., 2008; Marino,
2009). The remaining studies described the benefits for all
participants, without specifying whether practices differentially benefited participants with specific characteristics
(e.g., disability status).
Information on Application of UD Principles
The second focus area for this review was researchers’
descriptions of their application of UD principles to interventions. During the coding process, the raters looked for
explicit connections made between UD principles and elements of the intervention. Because of the variability in how
researchers reported this information, we did not assign a
rating or value for the extent to which researchers describe
UD principles; rather we simply noted the connections to
UD principles provided in the article. The fifth columns in
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the ways in which UD principles
were described in relation to interventions. In these columns, we also noted whether UD principles were addressed
in the introduction and methods sections of an article to
consider the formats that researchers used for reporting this
information
Two of the pre-K–12 articles provided information about
how the UDL principles related to their intervention with
specificity and detail, making explicit links between principles and components of their interventions. Browder et al.
(2009) noted how they operationalized the three UDL principles into specific instructional practices for three students
in their single-subject study. For example, they included a
table describing the use of a light box, a switch, and specific
praise for each student related to the UDL principles of representation, expression, and engagement. Lieber et al.
(2008) also made explicit connections between the three
main UDL principles and the specific instructional practices
within the school-wide curriculum that was the focus of
their examination and included a sample lesson in their
study. Three pre-K–12 articles gave examples of the components of their interventions, rather than the full intervention, aligned with UDL principles (Abell et al., 2011; Dolan
et al., 2005; Dymond et al., 2006). Although all of the preK–12 studies mentioned the 3 main UDL principles, none
made connections between instructional practices and the 9
UDL guidelines or 31 checkpoints that are subdivisions of
the 3 main principles of Representation, Action and
Expression, and Engagement.
In the post-secondary set of articles, Parker et al. (2008)
and Rao and Tanners (2011) provided specific and detailed
information on connections to principles of the UID and
UDI models. In both articles, the authors reported on
instructional practices within university-level courses and
noted how their instructional practices mapped to principles
Remedial and Special Education 35(3)
of their selected UD models. For example, these researchers
described how they used asynchronous and synchronous
technologies to provide options for students and described
how specific activities and assignments in their courses
aligned with UD principles. These researchers also
described the use of UID and UDI principles during the
design and implementation of their courses and referenced
specific principles in the discussion of outcomes. Two articles provided examples of UDL-related strategies in their
interventions as well as additional information, such as
rubrics and survey questions used to assess the UDLcomponents (Schelly et al., 2011; Spooner et al., 2007).
In general, articles followed a format of providing background information on the UD model in their Introduction
sections and information on application of principles in the
methods sections of the studies. However, the depth of
information reported on the application of principles varied
in format and content across the set of articles.
Discussion
In this section, we discuss the implications of this review
and related considerations for future research on the application and evaluation of UD educational models.
Current Snapshot of UD Research
This review of articles revealed that the empirical literature
on UD in education addresses many levels of educational
practice. Researchers applied UD principles for a range of
purposes and examined factors as varied as learning processes, testing accommodations, technology-based learning
environments, professional development, and classroom
practices. Researchers consistently provided a strong rationale for the need to use UD principles within educational
environments. However, the extent to which researchers
explicitly connected UD principles to their interventions,
measures, and findings varied greatly, posing challenges for
the analysis and interpretation of the effectiveness of applying UD principles to educational practices. In aggregate, the
findings of the studies supported the use of UD principles
by providing evidence of the benefits and positive outcomes
for students and educators. However, because the studies
used a range of research designs, most of which did not
establish causality of effectiveness, the evidence should be
interpreted with caution as a set of preliminary positive
results based on varied methods of analysis. In the following sections, we present some specific issues that emerged
from this review and related recommendations.
Definition of UD Principles
Although all of the articles made mention of procedures and
guidelines associated with their selected UD educational
163
Rao et al.
models at some point in their paper, researchers used the
terminology related to the UD educational models in widely
varying ways. Researchers used the term “universal design
for learning” most often to refer to the UDL model and its
associated principles published by the CAST (2012) and the
NCUDL (2010) websites, yet the phrase “universal design
for learning” was also sometimes used as a generic term to
connote ways in which principles from the different UD
models can be applied to curriculum and instruction.
Articles that referenced UDI and UID most often defined
principles associated with these models in the literature (as
listed in Table 1). A few articles used the term UDL, and
referred to a combination of principles associated with all
three models (UDI, UID, and UDL).
This inconsistent use of terminology is a barrier to
research on the efficacy of the application of UD educational models. As McGuire, Scott, and Shaw (2006) noted,
Leaders in the development of UD in educational settings,
including researchers and practitioners, must be intentional in
their use of terminology, understanding which terms are linked
to a theoretical model for the purpose of assessment, evaluation,
and validation, and which terms reflect a befuddling use of
adjectives with no specific meaning. (p. 172)
Whatever the referent, researchers emphasized the
importance of UD educational principles. Many of the articles dedicated a significant portion of their introductory and
background sections to describing the importance of including UD principles in the design of curriculum and instruction. Several articles also noted the dearth of research on the
effects of applying UD educational models to practice and
called for further empirical validation of UD’s application
to instructional environments.
Operationalization and Application of UD
Principles
Rather than providing only a general definition about the
model and its principles, descriptions of studies are
enhanced by a clear delineation of principles being used and
how they are applied to specific elements of the intervention. Although all researchers stated that their interventions
are based on principles of a UD model, the level of detail
about how the components of their interventions aligned to
specific principles and guidelines varied greatly. Authors
who provided explicit links between principles and practices did so in different ways, with no standard format for
reporting links between principles and their application to
discrete elements of their projects or interventions. Some
provided a few examples of UD-based strategies that were
part of their interventions, whereas others included tables or
narrative descriptions that connected principles to practices.
The lack of explicit descriptions in many articles is
problematic for several reasons. First, those who wish to
apply successful UD practices can benefit from specific
examples of how to successfully operationalize the UD
principles. Second, researchers wishing to examine the efficacy of UD educational application instruction can do so
only by knowing specifically which UD-based components
of an intervention resulted in positive outcomes, which can
only occur when detailed information is provided about
how interventions operationalize the principles.
Recommendations for Reporting Information
The efficacy of applying UD to curriculum and instruction
can be established over time, as research accumulates to
prove or disprove that UD-based interventions work, for
whom, and under what conditions. For this to occur, it is
important for researchers to do two things. First, researchers will need to describe their interventions explicitly
(Gersten et al., 2005; Odom et al., 2004). Those who wish
to replicate UD-based intervention research and make
adjustments to specific features of UD-based intervention
studies can do so only when they know exactly what
UD-based procedures were applied. We suggest that
research articles on UD in education contain a section that
details the connections between UD principles and intervention components. This can be reported as part of the
methods section when describing the intervention or procedures. For example, if using the UDL framework, researchers should note which guidelines or checkpoints associated
with multiple means of representation, action, and expression are incorporated into the lessons and how they are
operationalized. By providing information on how UD
principles are operationalized and applied to various components of pedagogy such as specific learning objectives,
instructional strategies, and technology, researchers will
give shape and form to the construct of UD in education.
This information is useful not only for researchers but also
for practitioners interested in designing effective UD-based
curricula and instruction. Researchers can provide additional information for those seeking to replicate an intervention by including examples of their lessons and how the
lessons were implemented.
Second, researchers should report complete demographic characteristics of their samples, including disability
categories (Gersten et al., 2005; Hammill, Bryant, Brown,
Dunn, & Marten, 1989; Rosenberg et al., 1994). Because
UD-based educational interventions intend to increase
access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities while also benefiting a range of learners with and without disabilities, it is particularly important to report specific
participant information. By doing so, researchers enable
research consumers to ascertain for what specific types of
learners UD-based intervention are effective. It is important
to know the effects of UD intervention on different groups
164
of at-risk learners (e.g., students with learning disabilities,
culturally and linguistically diverse learners) rather than
examine solely whether they are effective generally across
different groups of learners.
In keeping with quality indicators for experimental
research, we recommend that researchers follow the recommendation supplied by Gersten et al. (2005) to “provide
enough about information about participants so that readers
can identify the population of participants to which results
may be generalized” (p. 155). This includes providing
information on disability status; demographic information
on age, race, gender, English language learner status, and
special education status; and achievement scores. When
describing how instructors apply UD principles to the
design and implementation of curriculum and instruction, it
is important to present their backgrounds and professional
experiences to understand the factors that contribute to
instructor ability to adopt and use these practices.
Information should be provided concerning age, gender,
ethnicity, years of professional experience, and degrees
earned (Boudah, 2011). If applicable, information may also
be presented on years teaching in a specific content area
(e.g., history, special education methods, and materials) and
certifications achieved.
Providing this level of participant information in addition
to details about the setting and duration of the intervention
will allow UD researchers and research consumers to clearly
determine the implications of the study (e.g., For what types
of learners was the UD-based intervention effective?).
Ideally, researchers can also disaggregate findings and
include information on whether and how UD-based practices
are effective for specific student populations. This level of
detail will facilitate replication efforts and meaningful syntheses of findings across studies—both of which are critical
for building a valid base of research on UD in education.
Implications of Research Designs Used
While reviewing the approximately 200 articles identified
in our original search, we were struck by the scarcity of
empirical examinations exploring the efficacy of UD models. Most of the literature consists of descriptive studies
about the importance of using UD in education and descriptions of how researchers applied the principles. Of the 13
articles that met our criteria as an intervention research
study, over a third used qualitative methods to describe how
the use of UD educational models was perceived by faculty
and students and which practices participants reported as
effective. Although these studies established that the application of UD principles are valued by stakeholders, they are
not designed to examine whether UD-based interventions
caused improved learner outcomes in terms of content and/
or skill acquisition.
Remedial and Special Education 35(3)
One of the reasons for the scarcity of quantitative intervention studies in the field may be that the discipline currently is at a more nascent stage of defining and describing
what UD educational models are and how they can be
applied. Certainly, the current literature is starting to give
definition and shape to what a UD educational model-based
project or intervention looks like, but eventually researchers will need to address whether instruction incorporating
UDL actually causes better results than conventional lessons and courses by conducting high-quality experimental
studies, including true experimental, quasi-experimental,
and single-subject designs.
Limitations and Further Research Needs
We recognize that any examination has its limitations. First,
it is always possible that we missed some articles.
Specifically, due to the large number of articles found
through the original database searches, we did not use additional search methods, such as ancestral searches. As a
result, we may have missed articles not uncovered by our
search of electronic databases. Moreover, other research
studies may have been published after we conducted our
review and are therefore not included in our results. Thus, it
is important for scholars to update this review by systematically identifying and examining future studies conducted on
UD educational application (e.g., UDI, UDL, UID). Second,
we did not review all aspects of studies (e.g., treatment
fidelity, attrition) and we perhaps omitted elements of UD
educational applications, such as the emerging focus on UD
for large-scale assessment. Future research can expand
upon our work by taking into consideration articles and
applications of UD that we did not include in our review.
Based on this review of literature, we posit that establishing standards for reporting how UD is applied in studies can strengthen future research on UD in education.
Detailed reporting of UD components within a study will
assist researchers as they design future experimental
research that replicates and expands upon extant research
examining the efficacy of UD-based practices. Future
research will need to answer the questions of whether and
how the use of UD in curriculum and instruction provides
access to information for students with disabilities and to
define what an effective UD-based practice looks like.
There can be little doubt that UD has made an appreciable
difference in the lives of people with disabilities. Houses
and other buildings that posed accessibility challenges for
people with disabilities are now accessible because of the
application of UD principles. Can the same be said when
UD is applied to curriculum and instruction, or is it simply
an intuitive concept that has little real effect on students’
performance levels? Further research is needed to meaningfully address this critical question.
Rao et al.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
*Abell, M. M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom instructional environments in the context
of universal design for learning. Learning Environments
Research, 14, 171–185. doi:10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 2,
104 Stat. 328 (1991).
Basham, J. D., Meyer, H., & Perry, E. (2010). The design and
application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42, 339–359.
Boudah, D. (2011). Conducting educational research: Guide to
completing a major project. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
*Browder, D. M., Mims, P. J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,
& Lee, A. (2009). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and
Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 3–12.
Burgstahler, S. (2009). Universal design of instruction (UDI):
Definition, principles, guidelines, and examples [website].
Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/
instruction.html
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2012). What is universal
design for learning [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.
cast.org/udl/index.html
Center for Universal Design. (2010). Ronald L. Mace [webpage].
Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_
us/usronmace.htm
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for
good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39,
3–7.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research
syntheses. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
*Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman,
N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test
delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test
performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7).
Available from http://www.jtla.org
*Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Rosenstein, A., Chun, E. J.,
Banks, R. A., Niswander, V., & Gibson, C. L. (2006). Using a
participatory action research approach to create a universally
designed inclusive high school science course: A case study.
Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities,
31, 293–308.
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for
learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions
for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly,
33, 33–41.
165
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C.,
& Innocenti, M. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education.
Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
Goff, E., & Higbee, J. L. (Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and student
services for institutional transformation: Implementing universal design in higher education. Minneapolis: Center for
Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy,
University of Minnesota.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for
learning in the classroom. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hammill, D. D., Bryant, B. R., Brown, L., Dunn, C., & Marten, A.
(1989). How replicable is current LD research? A follow-up
to the CLD research committee’s recommendations. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 12, 174–179. doi:10.2307/1510686
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. United States
Department of Education. Public Law 110-315, 20 U.S.C.
(2008).
Kortering, L. J., McClannon, T. W., & Braziel, P. M. (2008).
Universal design for learning: A look at what algebra and
biology students with and without high incidence conditions
are saying. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 352–363.
doi:10.1177/0741932507314020
*Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008). Access
to the general education curriculum for preschoolers with
disabilities: Children’s school success. Exceptionality, 16,
18–32. doi:10.1080/09362830701796776
*Marino, M. T. (2009). Understanding how adolescents with reading difficulties utilize technology-based tools. Exceptionality,
17, 88–102. doi:10.1080/09362830902805848
Maryland State Department of Education. (2011). A route for every
learner: Recommendations from the task force to explore the
incorporation of the principles of universal design for learning into the education systems in Maryland. Retrieved from
http://www.udlcenter.org/advocacy/state/maryland
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal
design and its applications in educational environments.
Remedial and Special Education, 27, 166–175.
*McGuire-Schwartz, M. E., & Arndt, J. S. (2007). Transforming
universal design for learning in early childhood teacher education from college classroom to early childhood classroom.
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28, 127–139.
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2010). UDL
guidelines [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.
org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011).
UDL guidelines version 2.0: Research evidence [webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/research/
researchevidence
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. D.,
Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2004). Quality indicators for
research in special education and guidelines for evidencebased practices: Executive summary. Reston, VA: Division
for Research, Council for Exceptional Children.
*Parker, D. R., Robinson, L. E., & Hannafin, R. D. (2008).
“Blending” technology and effective pedagogy in a core
course for preservice teachers. Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 24, 49–54.
166
*Rao, K., & Tanners, A. (2011). Curb cuts in cyberspace:
Universal instructional design for online courses. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(3), 211–229.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1998), 34 C.F.R. Part 104.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Amendments (1998), 34 C.F. R, Part
104.
Roberts, K. D., Park, H. J., Brown, S., & Cook, B. (2011).
Universal design for instruction in postsecondary education:
A systematic review of empirically based articles. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24, 5–15.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., &
Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in
postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and
their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and
Disability, 19, 135–151.
Rosenberg, M., Bott, D., Majsterek, D., Chiang, B., Gartland,
D., Wesson, C., . . .Wilson, R. (1994). Minimum standards
for the description of participants in learning disabilities
Remedial and Special Education 35(3)
research. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 56–59.
doi:10.1177/074193259401500108
*Schelly, C. L., Davies, P. L., & Spooner, C. L. (2011). Student
perceptions of faculty implementation of universal design for
learning. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability,
24, 17–30.
*Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,
& Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal
design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial
and Special Education, 28, 108–116. doi:10.1177/07419325
070280020101
Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities.
Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/pudfiletoc.htm
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top assessment
program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/index.html